Is this the answer to our waste crisis?

Katie BreckheimerECO

Published: Thursday, May 16, 2013 at 4:30 a.m.

Last Modified: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at 2:22 p.m.

In 1990, our community organized against the environmental threat of a garbage incinerator trying to locate here. A group, Citizens for Responsible Waste Management, formed to study and advise Henderson County commissioners about the consequences of allowing the plant to be built in Mountain Home.

Part of the debate was whether the county could impose stricter rules regarding air quality than the state’s rulings. (Sound familiar?)

The community was saying not in my backyard (NIMBY) to the company proposing the plant because the technology was not clean enough. After a vigorous public debate and an incinerator ordinance put in place by local government, the incineration company looked elsewhere.

The debate focused attention on our precious mountain air and how susceptible we are to pollution — in particular, a persistent weather condition known as inversion, which holds polluted air close to the ground until a good wind comes along to move it (usually up the Ohio River Valley, or toward the Northeast).

Burning waste is not a new approach to throwing things away. In America’s garbage history, there has been a lot of waste burning. However, today’s disposal of choice remains burying it in the ground. Henderson County’s trash, 95,000 tons per year, is currently transported 85 miles away to a mega-landfill in Union County, S.C. The transportation of our waste comes with high costs, both financial and environmental.

In early April, like most Transylvania County residents, I learned for the first time about a biomass plant being proposed for the Penrose community. The promise of green energy sounded good; and I assumed that a biomass plant would process organics such as wood waste. But when I heard that the plant would also be accepting municipal solid waste (MSW) and tires as feedstock, I had my doubts.

At the public information session in Brevard on April 11, I learned from the company, Renewable Developers LLC, that a process called pyrolysis would be used to turn “sound, well-qualified” feedstock into syngas (methane, hydrogen gas and tars) and biochar (similar to charcoal). The company would be building a material recovery facility (MRF) and a small power plant, which would sell energy to the power company.

Its pyrolysis process, which differs from other high-temperature methods like combustion and hydrolysis, would use a super-low NOx-producing burner at temperatures between 900 to 1,200 degrees (depending on the feedstock). NOx is a term for nitrogen oxide, a chief component of smog and acid rain. The company’s representatives said the trash would be sorted and recyclables removed at the MRF before pyrolysis took place. However, plastics would be an acceptable feedstock.

The presentation lasted about 30 minutes and described a rather complex process. Then the floor was opened to the crowd (around 400 people with standing room only) for questions. It was definitely a NIMBY crowd; the majority were not in favor of the plant. They were upset to hear that the company had already been in talks with Transylvania County commissioners and had already applied for a permit from the N.C. Utilities Commission. Why had the public not been informed until April?

Some questions from the crowd: Will the plant run all the time? Yes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Will the plant grow larger over time? Yes, the hope is to build a phase two and phase three. Will the plant generate air pollution? Yes, the dryer, shredder and generator will emit approximately the same amount as 27 cars. Will there be wastewater? Yes, a small holding pond will be built. How much truck traffic will there be? Initially, the company expects 12 to 15 trucks per day during business hours. Was it locating near the railroad tracks in hopes of using rail? Yes, initially road transport would bring in feedstock materials, but someday possibly rail could be used as well.

The people of Brevard have been quick to organize themselves; follow them at peopleforcleanmountains.org. They have more questions and are asking their commissioners to help answer them.

I learned from my own research that biomass plants, built in other parts of the country, have become very controversial. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, biomass plants can be no more efficient than coal-burning power plants. The Wall Street Journal reported that 85 of 107 plants nationwide have been fined for pollution violations in the past five years.

Some biomass companies are taking advantage of grants and tax incentives because they are considered “renewable” energy plants. Many states have set goals to move away from fossil fuels and more toward renewables. It looks to be the same for North Carolina. Our General Assembly set up and funded the Biofuels Center of North Carolina in 2007 to conduct research on biofuels with a goal to create 10 percent locally produced fuels as a part of energy independence.

Should we find a way to deal with our ever-increasing municipal solid waste problem locally? Yes, I think we should. But unless the biomass plant proposed for Penrose is truly clean technology, it’s not appropriate for our mountain community. Katie Breckheimer is a long-time ECO member and volunteer. She can be reached at katiebreckheimer@gmail.com.

<p>In 1990, our community organized against the environmental threat of a garbage incinerator trying to locate here. A group, Citizens for Responsible Waste Management, formed to study and advise Henderson County commissioners about the consequences of allowing the plant to be built in Mountain Home.</p><p>Part of the debate was whether the county could impose stricter rules regarding air quality than the state's rulings. (Sound familiar?)</p><p>The community was saying not in my backyard (NIMBY) to the company proposing the plant because the technology was not clean enough. After a vigorous public debate and an incinerator ordinance put in place by local government, the incineration company looked elsewhere.</p><p>The debate focused attention on our precious mountain air and how susceptible we are to pollution — in particular, a persistent weather condition known as inversion, which holds polluted air close to the ground until a good wind comes along to move it (usually up the Ohio River Valley, or toward the Northeast).</p><p>Burning waste is not a new approach to throwing things away. In America's garbage history, there has been a lot of waste burning. However, today's disposal of choice remains burying it in the ground. Henderson County's trash, 95,000 tons per year, is currently transported 85 miles away to a mega-landfill in Union County, S.C. The transportation of our waste comes with high costs, both financial and environmental.</p><p>In early April, like most Transylvania County residents, I learned for the first time about a biomass plant being proposed for the Penrose community. The promise of green energy sounded good; and I assumed that a biomass plant would process organics such as wood waste. But when I heard that the plant would also be accepting municipal solid waste (MSW) and tires as feedstock, I had my doubts.</p><p>At the public information session in Brevard on April 11, I learned from the company, Renewable Developers LLC, that a process called pyrolysis would be used to turn “sound, well-qualified” feedstock into syngas (methane, hydrogen gas and tars) and biochar (similar to charcoal). The company would be building a material recovery facility (MRF) and a small power plant, which would sell energy to the power company.</p><p>Its pyrolysis process, which differs from other high-temperature methods like combustion and hydrolysis, would use a super-low NOx-producing burner at temperatures between 900 to 1,200 degrees (depending on the feedstock). NOx is a term for nitrogen oxide, a chief component of smog and acid rain. The company's representatives said the trash would be sorted and recyclables removed at the MRF before pyrolysis took place. However, plastics would be an acceptable feedstock.</p><p>The presentation lasted about 30 minutes and described a rather complex process. Then the floor was opened to the crowd (around 400 people with standing room only) for questions. It was definitely a NIMBY crowd; the majority were not in favor of the plant. They were upset to hear that the company had already been in talks with Transylvania County commissioners and had already applied for a permit from the N.C. Utilities Commission. Why had the public not been informed until April?</p><p>Some questions from the crowd: Will the plant run all the time? Yes, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Will the plant grow larger over time? Yes, the hope is to build a phase two and phase three. Will the plant generate air pollution? Yes, the dryer, shredder and generator will emit approximately the same amount as 27 cars. Will there be wastewater? Yes, a small holding pond will be built. How much truck traffic will there be? Initially, the company expects 12 to 15 trucks per day during business hours. Was it locating near the railroad tracks in hopes of using rail? Yes, initially road transport would bring in feedstock materials, but someday possibly rail could be used as well.</p><p>The people of Brevard have been quick to organize themselves; follow them at peopleforcleanmountains.org. They have more questions and are asking their commissioners to help answer them.</p><p>I learned from my own research that biomass plants, built in other parts of the country, have become very controversial. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, biomass plants can be no more efficient than coal-burning power plants. The Wall Street Journal reported that 85 of 107 plants nationwide have been fined for pollution violations in the past five years.</p><p>Some biomass companies are taking advantage of grants and tax incentives because they are considered “renewable” energy plants. Many states have set goals to move away from fossil fuels and more toward renewables. It looks to be the same for North Carolina. Our General Assembly set up and funded the Biofuels Center of North Carolina in 2007 to conduct research on biofuels with a goal to create 10 percent locally produced fuels as a part of energy independence.</p><p>Should we find a way to deal with our ever-increasing municipal solid waste problem locally? Yes, I think we should. But unless the biomass plant proposed for Penrose is truly clean technology, it's not appropriate for our mountain community. Katie Breckheimer is a long-time ECO member and volunteer. She can be reached at katiebreckheimer@gmail.com.</p>